I thought I would be compelled to replace my Mk1. Good thing I don't have to, phew. Or is it a good thing? Panasonic updated the 14-140mm, and the new one is smaller, lighter, brighter and cheaper! Olympus updated the kit 14-42mm so it's smaller, lighter, faster and quieter. Did Panasonic get lazy with this one?

The 20/1.7 MkII is still a good lens though, but I'd get the Mk1 for the lower price if I hadn't already.

Gaffman: The fact that this camera can mount an electronic viewfinder sounds great until you learn its the same near $400+ unit that goes with the RX1.

I still see the hot shoe benefits for flash shooters and video users but this viewfinder thing is a joke.

I agree that the Sony EVF for this seems expensive. It would've been better if Sony had multiple options that are reasonably priced, like Olympus. Olympus has 3 starting from $150 and the new VF-4 with 2.36M dots is only $280, only $80 more than the VF-2.

Why are you already committing to review a fairly specialised lens of a rather unimpressive mirrorless system? Surely you can do better things with your time?

For comparison I noticed that, unless I am missing something (I searched this site), you haven't reviewed the EOS M itself. I can only find a preview from July 2012. So you're willing to review this lens (not the kit lens, not the prime) on a camera you haven't reviewed in nearly a year? Srsly?

@Henry M. Hertz: so you would rather get the EOS-M than say an E-PL5, which has better IQ, more features (IBIS, tilting screen, optional EVF, etc.) for the same money? Then there's the m43 lens line up, which has lenses performing better than many EF/EF-S lens mounted on cropped Canon.

yabokkie: I use EF40/2.8 as "lens cap" that almost as good as some f/2.8 zooms. if this lens delivers as good resolution it could be a good lens cap for XF cameras.

since f/2.8 on APS-C is about 1.3 stops darker than f/2.8 on 35mm full-frame, the price should also be about 1.3 stops lower, or at least at half price of EF40/2.8.

@yabokkie: the f-number is light intensity, it doesn't get brighter or darker on larger or smaller format - think PSI (pressure)! So take a picture on FF with the 40/2.8, then crop the file so it's 2/3 the size. That basically what happens when you mount the same lens on a Rebel and take the same photo with the same settings (albeit with different resulting IQ).

radissimo: Seems that price/value is BETTER than Olympus E-p5 ,but NOT Sony NEX-5R...Competition is good...

@Raist3d - the PanyLeica 25/1.4 and Oly 60mm macro are cheaper than the Fuji alternatives: 35/1.4 and 60mm macro. Also, other m43 lenses like the Pany 20/1.7 and Oly 45/1.8 are very good and affordable.

BJL: A better solution would be normal cameras controls plus WiFi or bluetooth connection to the phone that most NX camera users will be carrying anyway.

This instead seems like a toaster-fridge: a camera with the size and bulk of a DSLR, but with all the DLR controls replaced by a phone's touch so that the controls that you most often want to adjust while using the EVF cannot be, because they rely on looking at the touch screen.

Agree... the EVF will be awkward to use since there are essentially no physical controls.

Suprising really. And as its supposedly big enough problem, are you aware of any dSLR that has fast AF in LV or video mode? I would be suprised if you know about one.

I have nothing agaisnt if you mention somewhere that it doesnt have fast AF in LV or video mode. For those who have no idea how AF works or they were under rock when mirrorless came. But it shouldnt be con for simple reason. LIVE VIEW CANT BE FAST WITH DSLR!

Unless you for that purpose put AF sensors directly on sensor (ala NEX-6 and others). Which Nikon didnt. Neither Canon, or Pentax. And I doubt they will.

I commonly see friends, family and other people who just got a DSLR or rarely shoot one use it like a P&S and get annoyed because of the slow LV. For the D5200, the problem is more of an issue as the articulated screen is a major selling point over other Nikon models. Anyway, both Nikon and Canon are behind in this regard. What's funny is that a T5i, even with its on sensor PDAF and STM lens, is still slower in LV than Olympus/Panasonic with purely CDAF. Nikon and Canon need to work on their CDAF implementation since its not just the case of PDAF only lenses.

Timmbits: f1.2 is impressive... until you consider it's for a small sensor nikon1 system. then the actual aperture becomes a f3.2 equivalent. this is the sort of lens that could do lots for MFT. but the 1 system starts off so handicapped, one wonders what's the point, since it's target market is amateur enthusiasts getting their first IL system.

Not trying to be pedantic or anything but the "actual aperture" doesn't change; it's the DoF.

Michael Jardine: I have a D800 and D7000 with 16-35, 50, 85, 70-200 and 300 lenses. I have used it for magazine photography and even some night sports. But I find that the M43 system is perfect for travel. At first I brought both camera systems along, but in the end I have dropped the DSLR in favor of M43.

I have also used it for my most recent magazine work (portraits), so I'm not the only one happy with the results. I just shoot with two simple and relatively inexpensive primes: 20 and 45.

Sony was an option but poor lens selection and the lenses you can get are much bigger. The entire reason for switching over to M43 was to have a camera that is, quite literally,pocketable. The Olympus E-PL5 with 20mm, is just that. I imagine the E-P5 will also be pocketable, with the added advantage of the two spin dials that most DSLR users are used to.

@yabokkie:DPR finds the 20/1.7 to have "Impressive image quality at all apertures": http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_20_1p7_o20/4

The lens is good and even almost 4 years later, there's not much option for bright (at least F/1.8), compact and affordable primes with similar FoV (35-40mm) on DSLR and mirrorless formats.

Cane: One would think Canon would just buy out Magic lantern, or their engineers, and put this stuff into their camera's to begin with? I know, crazy thought to make a product to max out it's abilities, when someone else can just take your product and make it better for you. That doesn't make you look foolish, does it?

Canon has at least 2 reasons:1. It doesn't cost Canon to have Magic Lantern right now2. Canon has it's more expensive video cameras to protect

That said, I do wish these advanced features are supported by the default firmware if the hardware is capable of doing it.

Nice camera. I think I'm finally going to upgrade my E-PL2 to this. The E-PL5 is a good body but I'd hate having to switch between a VF and flash, and the E-P3 had the old sensor. I'm not bothered by the lack of built-in VF as I have a VF-2. That said, I wonder what the E-M6 is going to be like. Would Olympus put a pop-up flash in it?

Marty4650: This could be a Fuji X100s killer. Especially if the 17mm f/.8 lens is bundled with it.

Not only will it be cheaper, but you will have the ability to mount other primes, which is something that the Fuji can't do.

Of course, it may not matter much, since the Fuji X100s has something like a .0001% market share....

@zinedi: given the two choices, I'd pick the apple. Seriously though, I know someone who replace a X100 with a GX1+20/1.7. This is rumored to be $1000 with the 17/1.8. Add the VF2 and you're pretty much the same price as a X100s. Similar size, price and FL targeted intermediate users.

Chiemaiy: Nope, that's not the world's first constant f/1.8 zoom. Now excuse me while I go back to shooting with my Fujinon 18-85mm f/1.8 (T2.0).

I have a Canon 12.5-75/1.8 C-mount that cost me only $20. Yea it's all manual and vignettes even on m43. Still, this lens is far from being "the world's first constant F1.8 zoom". Anyway, good effort from Sigma and hopefully they make this for other brands (Pentax, Sony).

AngryCorgi: If you've seen the gallery for the 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, EOS M, 7D, or 60D, then this is just more of the same. Canon has become an extremely boring company, IMO.

"Basically the same size" until you look a it from the top/side and realize the OM-D is much smaller while having a tilting screen and more buttons/dials. The Oly is also lighter while being mostly metal and fully sealed. Also, the Oly has better IQ from its sensor, which was actually new. Unlike this one that has pretty much the same sensor as the 7D I've used in 2010. It's not even small and there's nothing really appealing about this camera compared to what's already out there.